Obama's July 2008 Op Ed On Iraq
Someone linked Obama's latest speech on the war on another thread. As if it said something important. So I thought it might be a good topic by itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
My Plan For Iraq
By BARACK OBAMA
Published: July 14, 2008
... snip ...
Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
First of all, in October 2002 (
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech ) when he gave his first speech against invading Iraq, Obama did not mention the Taliban, and in fact stated an invasion would divert us from the "uninsured", "poverty", "corporate scandals" and the "stock market". He also incorrectly suggested the war was about an "imminent threat", when in fact Bush's 2003 State of the Union explicitly stated that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat but that we needed to topple Saddam to keep it from becoming one. In other words, Obama missed the point back then and is STILL missing the point.
Continuing with excerpts from Obama's latest Op Ed:
Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.
Not true.
First of all, al-Qaeda has been very badly blooded in Iraq, losing thousands and thousands of *members* ... something which wouldn't have happened had Obama been in charge back in 2002. Had we not invaded, al-Qaeda would probably now have a very large, viable and active organization fueling global terrorism from the safety of Iraq. An Iraq that would probably now have WMD, making the problem of doing something about it more difficult and dangerous.
Obama's poor judgement didn't end in 2002. In early 2007, he authored a bill (which fortunately didn't pass) that would have forced all American soldiers out of Iraq by March 2008. He wasn't willing to listen back then to the wisdom of our top military commanders who were saying the war was still winnable provided we surged. Had that bill passed, then al-Qaeda would now be claiming victory in Iraq and Iraq would be in total chaos.
But because of the surge, which Obama opposed throughout all of 2007 (and still opposes), al-Qaeda's organization in Iraq has been shattered and now stands on the brink of total annihilation. And the civil war that he claimed doomed our effort is over. Because of Bush's surge, we now can safely move on the remnants of the organization in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as apply pressure to Iran with regards to al-Qaeda and other islamofanatics there.
As for Afghanistan, Obama is wrong again. The threat from al-Qaeda hasn't grown in Afghanistan. They are on the run and we are now coming after them where they have been hiding.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/media_spins_success_in_afghani.html "February 08, 2008, Media Spins Success in Afghanistan as Failure, American and Coalition forces have taken the initiative in Afghanistan, and have the Taliban on the run. Yet major American media outlets, to the extent they cover fighting in Afghanistan, are portraying the Taliban as "resurgent". Going on the offense and succeeding at it always increases violence. But is being spun onto bad news. The increase in fighting in Afghanistan is not a sign of a stronger Taliban, but rather a more desperate one. Despite all the media reports to the contrary it is we who are surging in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. ... snip ... No American media, except for the AP, not even the media that carries AP content, ran the story that NATO officially reported that the Taliban was not resurgent in Afghanistan. Most of the American media buried General McNeill's statement as well while continuing to use the "resurgent Taliban" characterization. Why? It should be painfully clear. To acknowledge that the Taliban is losing instead of winning is to validate the war policy of President Bush in the war against terror. When combined with a surge success in Iraq, the implications are dark for any Democrat nominee for the White House."
http://www.thestar.com/News/Columnist/article/427330 "Taliban 'losing momentum', Canadian UN official says most militants are looking for a way out of war they cannot win, May 19, 2008"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-Taliban-insurgents-'on-brink-of-defeat'.html "Afghan insurgents 'on brink of defeat'... snip ... June 2, 2008, Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have "decapitated" the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a "tipping point", the commander of British forces has said. ... snip ... In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the "very effective targeted decapitation operations" that have removed "several echelons of commanders"."
The fact that Afghanistan is now warning that they will shoot down foreign aircraft in their airspace is an indication that we are now even going after al-Qaeda in their Pakistan retreats.
The problem is that Obama is out of touch with reality.
More excerpts from Obama's latest speech:
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
All of which Obama deemed impossible at the beginning of 2007 and again when the surge was announced. A demonstration of seriously defeatist and bad decision making on his part.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
First of all, he's lying about those being the factors that caused him to oppose the surge. Read this:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/020997.php "Obama's Dishonest Op-Ed".
Here's just a couple of the points made in that article:
On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, Obama said: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." He was wrong and as you can see, that's a different reason for opposing the surge than he is now giving.
And he didn't say this just once. He repeated the same theme over and over throughout the year. On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King Show, he said: "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground." Again he was wrong. We have effectively imposed a military solution on what was a brewing civil war. His problem is that he spoke to the wrong people. Or perhaps didn't listen to the right people when they spoke.
That article gives other examples of Obama stating that theme ... all the way into November of last year. His claim that the factors which made him decide the surge wouldn't work are still there is bogus. Spin. Funny that not a democrat or mainstream media outlet seems to notice that.
Furthermore, how can less violence in Iraq be putting more strain on our troops? Is Obama aware that we are halfway through the month of July and so far only one or two American soldiers have died in Iraq from enemy action? That's not an indication of more strain ... but far less strain ... all because of the surge working. And Bush recently announced that they would be cutting Army combat tours in Iraq from 15 to 12 months. Isn't that an indication of strain decreasing too?
And will withdrawing under Obama's timetable ... if it leads to chaos and a resurgence of al-Qaeda and Iran's influence in Iraq ... reduce the strain on our military forces? Has Obama considered that in his so-called solution? Have any of his advisors? Interestingly enough, Obama has stated that he wants to expand the military. Now why would he need a larger military if when he becomes President he's going to pull out of Iraq in 16 months? What does Obama have in mind that requires a larger American military if we have no presence in Iraq? Think about it.
As for the $200 billion (which I imagine are surge costs), if Iraq is now headed in the right direction (which is what our military leaders seem to think), that $200 billion was well spent. Would Obama prefer that we'd withdrawn in 2007, saved the $200 billion and thrown all the funds and lives that have been invested in Iraq so far away? If we hadn't surged, the situation in Iraq would be worse than it was before the surge. So what's Obama's logic? Where is the good sense in what he wanted? Obama in his 2002 speech complained about our getting our servicemen involved in a war where they'd die in vain. But apparently their dying in vain for a cause they believed really doesn't matter to Obama. What matters to Obama is getting elected come November.
I'm also puzzled by Obama's complaint about Iraq's leaders not investing the oil income. How does yanking our troops out make it more likely that Iraq's leaders will invest the billions they have in banks here in the US from oil revenue? Wouldn't the loss of confidence and instability that might result both politically and militarily from his recommended pullout timetable make it less likely the money would be channeled to rebuilding infrastructure?
And finally, he's flat out wrong when he claims the surge hasn't allowed time for a political accommodation to occur. It has.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102860.html "U.S. Embassy Cites Progress in Iraq, Most Congressionally Set Benchmarks Met, Report Finds, By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 2, 2008 ... snip ... Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress, according to a report by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. ... snip ... The embassy judged that the only remaining shortfalls were the Baghdad government's failure to enact and implement laws governing the oil industry and the disarmament of militia and insurgent groups, and continuing problems with the professionalism of the Iraqi police. All other goals -- including preparations for upcoming elections, reform of de-Baathification and disarmament laws, progress on enacting and spending Iraq's budget, and the capabilities of the Iraqi army -- were rated "satisfactory." ... snip ... In congressional testimony last September, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told lawmakers that about half the goals had been met."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...07/01/AR2008070101283.html?hpid=moreheadlines "Sunni Bloc to Rejoin Government ... snip ... July 2, 2008 ... snip ... BAGHDAD, July 1 -- Iraq's main Sunni Muslim political bloc is on the verge of rejoining the Shiite-led government after a nearly year-long boycott, a step widely seen as vital to reconciliation after years of sectarian conflict. Sunni leaders said Tuesday they had submitted the names of candidates to fill at least five cabinet posts as well as the position of deputy prime minister to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Maliki plans to put the six names to a parliamentary vote as early as next week. ... snip ... The bloc, known as the Tawafaq Front, withdrew from the government last August over demands for constitutional changes and the release of Sunni detainees from Iraq's prisons. Sunni leaders now say the government has done enough to address their core conditions, including passing an amnesty law that has freed thousands of Sunni detainees this year."
Continuing from Obama's latest Op Ed on the war:
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops.
This is more mischaracterization by Obama. Iraq's leaders did not demand a timetable. Here's what happened:
From
http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington. It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq."
You see, it was idea that was floated. al-Maliki is a supremely able politician, and he has to be because he's trying to keep a coalition of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds together, plus satisfy US interests (and we do have some despite what Obama's friends in MoveOn.org believe) and other foreign interests. Of course the Iraqis want us out. But the fact is that polls of the Iraq people show a clear majority do not want us to withdraw
until the security situation is settled. Likewise, neither do most Iraqi politicians want a precipitous exit. Even the Sunni ones. The reality is that Maliki's gamemanship is a sign that contrary to what Obama has been claiming about the surge ... it worked. It is a sign of his confidence in his country’s stability now that nine of Iraq’s 18 provinces are under domestic security control, al Qaeda is on the run even it's last refuge, and al Sadr's militia has been ousted from it's strongholds by the Iraqi military/police. Obama as a Senator and the liberal mainstream should be congratulating the Bush administration and Iraqis on the progress, not harping about timetables and Iraqis stepping up.
An article in the Wallstreet Journal on July 9th, noted that "Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie was quick to add that the call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal was
“conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security”. Maliki was not endorsing Obama's plan of immediate withdrawal regardless of the state of the war. In fact, I would wager that most Iraqis dread the idea of Obama becoming President because of the chaos that might ensue.
Again, from Obama's July 2008 Op Ed:
Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
How ironic that the timetable that Obama authored as legislation in early 2007 would have been a surrender ... to al-Qaeda and the Iranian backed insurgents. They'd now be triumphant.
I guess I have this question for Mr Obama. Can Obama guarantee that a timetable will not reduce the overall likelihood of achieving victory in Iraq or the length of time required to do it? Or is he simply *hoping* that it won't despite the fact that our military's leaders are extremely unhappy with such timetables? Frankly, I think this just shows further naivety on Obama's part ... thinking that our enemies wouldn't perceive a fixed timetable, regardless of the war's status, as a weakening of our will and therefore increase their resolve to hold out until we are gone.
We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.
Says who? Who are Obama's advisors in claiming this? Where are the numbers? We know who Bush's advisors are. We know he's listening to our active service military leaders. Who are Obama's? What are their qualifications? How well do they understand the situation on the ground in Iraq (given that their *boss* has been unwilling to go there or meet with our military commanders)?
That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces.
How does this differ from what Bush and the military already plan? How does it differ from what McCain says would have happen? Isn't it likely that if progress continues as is, we will be drawing down forces in the next two years? Why jeopardize that by starting a new policy advocated by someone with no track record and who time and again has been proven wrong about what he advocated we do in Iraq? Why should we vote for Obama over McCain when Obama has clearly made one wrong decision after another in the last several years where Iraq and the WOT are concerned? Hmmmmm?
As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected.
Notice that he didn't say he'd leave our troops in Iraq longer if our commanders and the Iraqi government thought that advisable. In fact, elsewhere he has stated that he would withdraw them regardless of the war's status. He even admitted on one occasion that he would not listen to our military leaders if they recommended otherwise? How can we be sure Obama is right before embarking on his dangerous gamble?
We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability
Ah yes, send in the clowns (I mean lawyers). And look how well that's worked in every other case it's been tried.
and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
The best way to support them is by making Iraq safe so they can return.
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven.
What Obama really doesn't get (nor do most liberals) is that Iraq is just one battlefield in this global war. And an important one, that if we don't win will only make our enemies stronger in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. What Obama doesn't get is that al-Qaeda made the decision to make Iraq it's main battlefield. Had it not fought there, it would have fought somewhere else. Perhaps a place that was not as easy or safe to deploy American military might (or even lawyers). Or if we'd waited, perhaps Iraq would still have ended up a battlefield, but this time with an Iraq rearmed with missiles, WMD and terrorists galore. Sort of like Iran.
Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.
This is a bald faced lie. al-Qaeda documents captured during the war state quite clearly that Iraq was the central front of the war and that a victory in Iraq was deemed very important, if not essential, to their ultimate aims. Is Obama really out of touch with these facts or is he simply making claims that suits his own political ambitions. In either case, that would make him a very dangerous person to put in the Whitehouse during a time like this.
Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea
Those bases in South Korea have served the US (and it's allies) well for nearly 60 years. They were a major part in resisting Soviet aggression. And they now play a vital role in obstructing possible North Korean and Chinese aggression. Bases aren't bad thing to have ... especially if you are facing opponents like Iran and Syria. We need bases in the Middle East. Does Obama not understand this *basic* fact of military logistics?
and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq
To where? Be specific Obama? Or will these redeployed troops not need bases in your opinion?
It’s time to end this war.
No, it's time for Obama to quit pretending he understands foreign policy, terrorism or the application of military force. The truth is that Obama has offered only rhetoric when it comes to the war on terror and Iraq. The truth is that his approach to the WOT is easily as undertermined in means, length, costs, and consequences as the one he complained about in 2002. The truth is that Obama has over an over demonstrated poor judgment in this area. And since this area is the number one job of the Federal government, that's reason enough to vote against him this fall.
